Theological Studies 63 (2002) CATHERINE MOWRY LaCUGNA’S CONTRIBUTION TO TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY ELIZABETH T. GROPPE [Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s God for Us: The Trinity and Chris- tian Life (1991) constitutes a paradigm shift in present-day trinitar- ian theology. LaCugna was convinced that the standard paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity was fraught with a variety of limitations. She offered as an alternative framework the principle of the inseparability of theologia and oikonomia, and within this struc- ture she developed a relational ontology of persons-in-communion. Her approach is a major contribution to the present renewal of the doctrine of the Trinity.] ATHERINE MOWRY LACUGNA’S God for Us: The Trinity and Christian C Life has proven to be a landmarkworkin the ongoing revitalization of trinitarian theology.1 This book, according to Michael Downey, “did more, perhaps, to stimulate thinking and discussion about the doctrine of the Trinity in Roman Catholic circles in the United States than any theo- logical worksince Karl Rahner’s The Trinity.”2 LaCugna wrote from the conviction that the doctrine of the Trinity is the cornerstone of systematic theology and an eminently practical teaching with radical consequences for Christian life. She also believed that the renewal of this doctrine—a doc- trine so often perceived as anything but practical—would require a recon- ceptualization of the very paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity that Rahner’s The Trinity had used. She surveyed the tradition to find resources for an alternative approach and proposed the patristic distinction of oikonomia (the mystery of salvation) and theologia (the mystery of God) as a frameworkfor present-day trinitarian theology. She emphasized the ELIZABETH T. GROPPE is assistant professor of systematic theology at Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio. She studied under Catherine LaCugna and completed her Ph.D. at the University of Notre Dame in 1999. Her thesis, Yves Congar’s Theology of the Holy Spirit, will be published shortly in the AAR Dissertation Series. She has previously contributed an article on Congar for Theological Studies (2001). 1 Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991). 2 Michael Downey, Altogether Gift: A Trinitarian Spirituality (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2000) 12. 730 LaCUGNA’S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 731 inseparability of oikonomia and theologia—of soteriology and theology— and this led her to the formulation of a relational theological ontology. My article explicates LaCugna’s critique of the paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity, summarizes her alternative approach, and discusses some of the contributions of her work. LaCugna held the Nancy Reeves Dreux Chair of Theology at the Uni- versity of Notre Dame at the time of her death from cancer in 1997. Originally from Seattle, LaCugna received her bachelor’s degree from Se- attle University. She earned her master’s and doctoral degrees at Fordham University and completed her dissertation which was subsequently pub- lished on the theological methodology of Hans Ku¨ng. In 1981 she joined the faculty at Notre Dame where she taught systematic theology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her workwas recognized nation- ally and internationally and resulted in several teaching awards and her eventual appointment to a distinguished chair of theology. At the time of her death, LaCugna was working on a book on the Holy Spirit in sequel to God for Us. It is an inestimable loss to the theological community and to the Church that cancer precluded the completion of this project. According to her family, friends, and colleagues, LaCugna greeted her illness with a deepened life of prayer and contemplation, courage, and grace. She died on May 3, 1997, at the age of 44 and is buried at Cedar Grove Cemetery on the University of Notre Dame campus.3 Discussion and study of her work continue, and my present article is one contribution to that ongoing con- versation. THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PARADIGM OF THE ECONOMIC AND IMMANENT TRINITY LaCugna advocated a new approach to trinitarian theology that would avoid some of the aporia of the discourse of the immanent and economic Trinity that structures much present-day trinitarian thought. Accordingto Pannenberg, the distinction between an economic and essential Trinity goes backto the 18th-century theologian Johann August Urlsperger. 4 3 Memorials include Nancy Dallavalle, “In Memory of Catherine Mowry LaCu- gna (1952–1997),” Horizons 24 (Fall, 1997) 256–57; Lawrence Cunningham, “God Is For Us,” America 176 (May 31, 1997) 6–7; Richard McBrien, “Catherine Found Words to Explicate the Trinity,” National Catholic Reporter, July 4, 1997, 18. See also the reflections of Mary Catherine Hilkert, O.P., Alan J. Torrance, Mary Ann Donovan, S.C., and Elizabeth Groppe offered at a 1999 Notre Dame symposium in LaCugna’s honor and published as an editorial symposium in Horizons 27 (2000) 338–59. 4 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 291 n. 111. Reference is to Johann August Url- 732 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Within Roman Catholic theology, the comparable terminology of eco- nomic and immanent Trinity has been in widespread use since the publi- cation of Rahner’s influential 1967 essay The Trinity.5 LaCugna acknowl- edged that the paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity had made an important contribution to present-day theology, particularly through Rahner’s own workand the ensuing discussion of his seminal Grundaxiom: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trin- ity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.’ ”6 Rahner reaffirmed that soteriology is de- cisive for theology and fostered a renewed appreciation of the mystery that God is by nature self-communicating and self-expressive. In so doing, he revitalized Catholicism’s theology of God.7 At the same time, LaCugna believed that Rahner’s clarion call for a renewal of trinitarian theology required the construction of a trinitarian paradigm that prescinded from the very language of the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity that Rahner had used. “I was more and more convinced,” she stated in a re- flection on the genesis and development of her own theology, “that the crucial aporia of the modern doctrine of the Trinity lay in or around the terms immanent and economic.”8 The limitations of this terminology in- clude the following: (1) The terminology of the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity is imprecise and can be misleading or confusing.9 In today’s theology, the language of “immanence” typically refers to God’s communion with cre- ation, whereas the term “immanent” in the expression immanent Trinity is used with the opposite intention.10 Statements about the immanent Trinity are usually intended as a reference to God ad intra, God in se, God as God would exist even if God had never created anything at all. As Henri Blocher wrote: “the immanent Trinity is an altogether different point from sperger, Vier Versuche einer genaueren Bestimmung des Geheimnisses Gottes des Vaters und Christi (1769–1774); idem, Kurzgefasstes System meines Vortrages von Gottes Dreieinigkeit (1777). It is anachronistic to interpret patristic or medieval theology using the terminology of the immanent and economic Trinity, although this is now standard practice. 5 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, rev. ed., trans. Joseph Donceel, introduction Cather- ine Mowry LaCugna (New York: Crossroad/Herder, 1997; orig. ed. 1970); original German text: “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsge- schichte,” in Die Heilsgeschichte vor Christus, vol. 2 of Mysterium Salutis (Einsie- deln: Benziger, 1967) 317–401. 6 Rahner, The Trinity 22. 7 LaCugna, God for Us 210–11 and 230–31. 8 LaCugna, “Discussion of God for Us” (lecture at Duke University, November 11, 1993) 2. 9 LaCugna, in God for Us Review Symposium, Horizons 20 (1993) 127–42, at 139. 10 LaCugna notes the different meanings of “immanence” (God for Us 211–12). LaCUGNA’S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 733 what is commonly called divine immanence.”11 To avoid confusion, theo- logians carefully qualify their use of these terms. This can result, as Paul Molnar makes evident, in theological circumlocutions such as the follow- ing: “The doctrine of the immanent Trinity should be a true understanding of who the transcendent God who is immanent in Christ and the Spirit in virtue of his transcendence is.”12 The term economic Trinity that is the counterpart of the term immanent Trinity is also imprecise. Strictly speaking, LaCugna explained, there is not an economic Trinity but only an economic “Binity,” for there are only two missions in the economy of salvation: the mission of the Word and the mission of the Spirit. God (the Father) does not proceed and is not sent.13 God is, of course, present in the economy through the Word and the Spirit. Nonetheless, the term economic Trinity does not convey the crucial dis- tinction between God (Unoriginate Origin) and the economic missions of the Word and the Spirit through whom the cosmos is created and re- deemed. (2) The paradigm of the immanent and economic Trinity can appear to suggest that there are two Trinities.14 The following citation from an article by Klauspeter Blaser illustrates this point: “The dogmatic tradition distin- guishes two trinities: the economic trinity (i.e. God in salvific manifestation, according to the biblical scheme) and the ontological or immanent Trinity (i.e. God in the diversity of God’s being, according to a philosophical- speculative scheme.)”15 Blaser undoubtedly does not mean to suggest that there are literally two Trinities. The terms immanent Trinity and economic Trinity designate not two numerically discrete realities but rather, as David Coffey notes while advising his readers against such false impressions, two ways of conceiving the trinitarian mystery of God.16 Surely, no one would 11 Henri Blocher, “Immanence and Transcendence in Trinitarian Theology,” in The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed.